Best Lawyers
Best Law Firms 2022
Consumer Attorneys
AV Preeminent
Super Lawyers
Avvo Reviews
Avvo Rating
San Diego Business Journal
10 Best Law Firm
America's Top 100 Personal Injury Attorneys 2019
WSAJ Eagle 2022

Premises Liability

Under California law, the owner, occupant or lessor of a premises (owner-operator) is generally the one legally responsible for dangerous conditions or activities on the premises. The owner-operator has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use, maintenance, and management of the premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Under limited circumstances, landowners may be strictly liable for harm caused to another on their property. These same general duties apply whether you are on private, commercial, or public property.

The types of dangerous conditions that can give rise to a claim for premises liability range from a slip/trip and fall; to dangerous stairs; to poor lighting; to incidents that occur in restaurants or stores. The injuries can be severe and often result in significant medical bills and lost wages. If you have suffered an injury on another’s premises it is important to secure photographs of how the premises presented at the time of the incident, as well as the names and phone numbers of any witnesses. This is critical because things will often be changed on the premises and defendants will later try to blame the injured party for being careless.

Negligence in Premises Liability Claims

Just because someone is injured by a dangerous property condition does not automatically trigger a premises liability claim. The victim must prove the owner-operator was somehow negligent, such as by:

  • Negligently creating the dangerous condition that caused the injury;
  • Negligently failing to properly maintain the property;
  • Negligently failing to become aware of the dangerous condition or inspect the property; and/or
  • Negligently failing to repair the dangerous condition upon becoming aware of its existence.

With negligence at the center of most premises liability personal injury claims, the victim must show a duty of care was owed to them by the defendant, the duty of care was breached, the breach caused the injury, and the victim suffered actual harm as a result.

An owner-operator has a duty to use reasonable care to discover, repair, and warn against dangerous conditions on their property in order to prevent injury. A victim must show the owner-operator breached that duty by dealing with the dangerous condition in a negligent manner and, in most cases, that they were the primary cause of injury and not someone else’s negligence.

Harm from a Third Party

Unlike most states, California has expanded the owner-operator’s liability in the case of harm caused by an unrelated third party. Owner-operators are responsible for reasonably controlling negative third-party behavior that, given the history, location, and nature of the premises, should be expected. For example, for an owner-operator of a premises in a high crime area who knows there is a history of visitors to their premises being targeted by criminals, liability could attach if they do not remedy this dangerous condition by taking steps such as increasing lighting or hiring security guards.

Comparative Negligence and Fault of the Victim

Property owner-operators may escape liability if the dangerous condition would have been obvious to a reasonable person. In such cases, a victim cannot argue the property owner-operator was responsible for their injuries. Furthermore, California employs the doctrine of comparative fault that may also lessen a victim’s recovery. Even if the owner-operator is at fault, the victim may be found to have a degree of fault as well. The percentage of fault allocated to the victim will lessen their damage recovery by a proportionate percentage.

Public Entity Protection

In California, the government has a much greater exemption from liability than private entities in premises liability and other personal injury cases. A victim must be able to show that either:

  • A public employee acting within the scope of their employment negligently created a dangerous condition; or
  • The public entity had notice of the dangerous condition and had enough time to act to prevent the injury at issue in the lawsuit.

These additional protections afforded to public entities makes succeeding in premises liability more difficult for victims, as dangerous conditions created by a person on public property who is not a public employee do not incur liability for the entity unless a victim can show the government knew the condition existed.

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury as a result of a dangerous condition on the property owned or maintained by another, you should speak to an experienced attorney to ensure you rights are protected. At Walton Law, A.P.C., we have successfully handled several premises liability cases and understand the intricacies surrounding these difficult claims.

For a free and confidential consultation with an experienced San Diego premises liability attorney, please call us directly at (866) 338-7079, or click here to submit your inquiry online.

Client Reviews
Chris, I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the man who changed my opinion of lawyers, forever. Your hard work, your knowledge & expertise, your guidance and your compassionate kindness helped us through the toughest of times and those aspects didn’t go unnoticed. Dave
If you're looking for an honest, compassionate, realistic lawyer that will fight hard for you then Christopher Walton is your man. He will always return your calls and will never promise you something that he cannot deliver on. In my personal situation Mr. Walton was able to explain the legal process to me with guidance along the way. I am grateful for his support and his hard work on my case. Mr. Walton and his staff are true professionals! Phillip
I was in a bike accident in 2015, and Chris could not have been a better advocate for myself and for my family. He always emailed and spoke with me on the phone at every step in the process. He let me know my options whenever a decision had to be made, and reassured that the process would take care of it self. He did everything in his power to get the best and largest settlement he could. I now understand and deeply respect everything Chris did for me. Jeffrey
Chris, you made me feel like you were more than "just my attorney" and that's something I could never repay you. You rarely see that quality in people these days which is why I'm sure you'll always be at the pinnacle of everything you do professionally and personally! John